The redistribution of wealth would come from the 'profits' now earned by private entities going to the workers.

No one would be forced to hand over anything other than the 'means of production' which would be ran by the workers, who would then have a larger
share in the profits made. The private owner is unnecessary and makes their wealth from the labour of others (exploitation). Why should you not
completely benefit from your labour, why should a private entity take what could be yours?

If you want an historical precedent and know how it could be done go and read about the Spanish revolution in the 1930's. Russia, China etc., have
nothing to do with socialism.

You say they would be forced to hand over nothing 'except the means of production'. Who forces this transfer? Do the workers go ape and physically
confiscate it? Is there a monopoly of violence(government) that does this?

I'm curious as to the moral argument behind the forcible removal of property. If Im a gold panner, and I strike it rich, should I not be able to
shift my excess capital into buying a factory? If I havent infringed on the rights of anyone and Ive done all my dealing on a voluntary basis, what
justifacation do the workers claim for taking my newly bought factory? And if the factory is owed to the workers, why have they not bought their own
collective factory with their own accumulated capital instead of taking mine from me, the humble 49er?

Obviously an oversimplified example, and Im aware of the generational wealth that has used violence and coercion throughout history to accumulate vast
sums of capital and monopolize markets, ect ect. But who is to decide whos factories were justly earned and whos werent? Who shall draw the line,
but the state, on what to confiscate and what worker is owed how much? I dont know how your ideas could be implemeted without violence.

No one can determine whos wealth is best spent and for what reason other than the self interested parties who own said wealth. This is the statists
great delusion - that one entity can know what is best for all parties at all times. That a decision should be imposed through violence, taxation,
confiscation, or whatever, and this will fix the problem, without regard to the future where 2 more problems have taken the place of the one you didnt
solve. History shows violence almost always achives the opposite of the original (stated) intent.

Peacefully remove the true obstacles of a real free market, like central banking, redistribution, involuntary taxation, ect, and allow man to decide
his own fate without that honking gun in the room clouding all his decisions.

Greed is human nature with or without capitalism.
Did you think that in the days before currency or cash money people did not cheat others out of trading animals, plants and objects? of course they
did!

The best example is Soviet Russia. There are plenty of people who lived throw the days if the USSR to prove that even under communism there is always
greed and even MORE so because there is so little of everything in the first place!

Even YOU are greedy! maybe not with money, but do you sometimes take more food on to your plate then you can eat? yes? you are greedy!

Greed is in human nature however you can self educate your self to hold back and be more kind and civil. It has nothing to do with Capitalism not even
Communism it's a bad human habit that's all.

Originally posted by Freedomrus
Greed is human nature with or without capitalism.

Capitalism perpetuates that excessive desire to possess wealth or goods, and it conditions us to be over competitive, for obvious reasons.
Money motivates greed. The capitalists system is not set up to make the world a better place, it's just to create personal wealth. It's an all
consuming system that leaves no room for Human growth, the only thing that grows is the wealth of the minority at the top.

It perverts our nature. Just like lust, hate, envy, gluttony, not very healthy traits to have in a society.

You say they would be forced to hand over nothing 'except the means of production'. Who forces this transfer? Do the workers go ape and physically
confiscate it? Is there a monopoly of violence(government) that does this?

Again please go read about Spain.

No violence is necessary, unless in self defense.

What would the capitalist do if the workers just said 'we're not working for you any more, you can either join us or go away'? That is what
happened in Spain. Most of the police, and military, joined the revolution on the side of the workers, cause they're workers also and could see the
advantage of a new system.

Violence is inevitable, it's a daily reality now, go to the middle east sometime. People seem to except state violence that is present in the system
everyday, but balk at the idea of using that violence against the state. Having said that though I know civil disobedience works, especially when the
numbers are on our side.

I dont know how you can legislate greed out of the human condition. It will manifest in society regardless of the system you are running. Creating a
monopoly on the conditions that people are allowed to accumulate things just transfers the power of greed to the monopolizers.

Better a free society based on volunteerism where at least the masses have a crack at competing and reining in the power of the ultra competitive
psychopaths. Because as it stands they pretty much have the world by the balls by using the economic power of a free-ish market to buy off the state
and use it as their attack dog. Bad setup imo. ~

You wouldn't have to. The capitalists state system perpetuates and conditions us to be greedy.

Without the state system conditioning the population through school and media we would eventually return to our natural ways.

Human infants as young as 14 to 18 months of age help others attain their goals, for example, by helping them to fetch out-of-reach objects or
opening cabinets for them. They do this irrespective of any reward from adults (indeed external rewards undermine the tendency), and very likely with
no concern for such things as reciprocation and reputation, which serve to maintain altruism in older children and
adults...

Although humans are genetically programmed with a fight-or-flight choice for survival of the species, they are not inherently violent (APA,
2006; White Ribbon Campaign, 2006). The compelling evidence is that humans fight or are violent only when attacked, stressed, or provoked - or when
mentally ill...

I see we are in almost total agreement - state run capitalism, better termed fascism, brings out and rewards the violent sociopaths among us. An
enviroment of fear and hatred is created, like a fish tank whos water has been tainted. To comform to the current system is to become one of the
insane.

But I cannot lay the blame squarely at the feet of the 'capitalists', just as I cannot soley blame the 'communists'. Capititalism, by its very
definition is just two or more people coming together and consentually agreeing to a trade thats mutually benefitial. (usually, or else consent would
not be given.) I can find no moral or logical flaw with free humans trading their justly produced surplus. The farmer is free to trade his surplus
eggs to the rancher for cattle, ect. In these exchanges, free will is not violated, no ones natural rights are infringed upon and both parties walk
away happy. I dont think any of us would disagree that such an exchange is immoral.

So what is the essential problem? If capitalism is simply free trade as defined above, and obviously an extension of mans natural rights to own what
he produces, why does capitalism get such a bad rap? Why do some constantly site capitalism as the source of all the worlds many woes?

Well imo captialism is a victim of its own sucess. Clearly free markets create the greatest expansions of wealth and egalitarianism ever seen. We
see this in the rise of Rome, the British Empire, and of course the USA, the latter creating the largest middle class ever. But to look at the latter
example now, with all its horrors, and to blame the free exchange of goods...to blame freedom itself, is appealing due to its simplicity but also
leaving out the one key point that allows capitalism to mutate into the monster it has become today.

And that key point is the State. Better definied as the monopoly of violence, because that is the key characteristic that seperates a state from any
other entity, be it a corperation or whatever. There was a time when the USA had the most limited State known to man. Ingenious systems of checks
and balances were imnposed on paper to restrain it. The founders of the once great nations feared its growth and saw it only as an necessary evil.
As force, as violence. They even suggested a revolution was necessary every generation to check the power that they knew from experience would mutate
and grow exponentially.

And what has happened? From the smallest State to the largest ever known on the face of the Earth. Theres a correlation there. The freedoms allowed
to the citizens predictably produced enourmous wealth and productivity. This supercharged production gave the tiny state the blood supply it needed
to grow exponentially. And once a State begins to grow, it is like a cancer. It never stops growing, as its job and sole function is to survive and
grow. And until the cancer reaches a critical phase where it actually comsumes its host and both die off, it feeds off the ever depleteing production
of the once free people. And once the freedom of the people is gone, and thus their productive capabilities, it feeds on any and all sectors that it
can gain its lifeblood from, be it internal or foreign.

And thus the most free Republics with thier high minded ideals of limited governments and freedom for the citizenry always mutate into the cancerous
parasite that is empire, combining the once free apendages of a once free people into arteries of the State. This is why every limited government
experiment results, eventually, in empire. This is why the smallest governments always end up the largest. This is why we are caught in a constant
cycle of freedom, growth, decadence and collapse, of which were are currently in the later phase.

This is why I see socialism, or any solution that advocates *more* State as miguided and self destructive. Anytime a group is set aside from us, the
people, with the unique ability of initiate force, it will always grow and will always become corrupt. And it will always destroy its supporters, and
those unfortunate enough to be caught in its whirlpool of death. We are all about to witness this process unfold in real time over the next couple
years, and in its aftermath we must find new solutions that dont involve giving once special group the power to rule us all through force.

A stateless society, as unimaginable and utopian as it may sound to most, is our only alternative to the Statist hell that is planned for us if we
continue to allow ourselves to be farmed like cattle. I dont know how this society would operate, but if based on the universal prinicipal of *the
non initiation of the use of force*, it might just have a shot at achiving a world where we dont slaughter eachother en mass every generation.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.